With regard to fraud, Sandhu's responses were minimal. Sandhu generally alleged the affirmative defense of fraud, but failed to make any argument that summary judgment should not be granted based on his fraud claim.[6] Instead, Sandhu referred to his affidavit attached as summary-judgment evidence. However, any issues a non-movant contends avoid summary judgment must be expressed in a written response to the motion and are not presented by mere reference to summary-judgment evidence. Mercier v. Southwestern Bell Yellow Pages, Inc., 214 S.W.3d 770, 774-75 (Tex. App.- Corpus Christi 2007, no pet.) (citing McConnell v. Southside Indep. Sch. Dist., 858 S.W.2d 337, 341 (Tex. 1993)). Because Sandhu failed to present and specify the elements of his fraud claim on which he alleged fact issues, he has not presented grounds for reversal.